JUDGMENT : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jaiswal waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition is narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the receptive parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “(A). Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate Writ, direction or Order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11/16.10.2018 passed by the Ld. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gandhinagar i.e. respondent No.1 in Review Case No.73 of 2017 at Annexure-A to this petition. (B) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased held and declared that the present petitioner is not liable to pay the deficit Stamp Duty levied by the present respondent No.1 by an order dated 11/16.10.2018 in Review Application No.73 of 2017. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition your Lordships may kindly be pleased to stay the implementation, execution & operation of the impugned Order dated 11/16.10.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 in Review Application No.73 of 2017 at Annexure-A to this petition. (D) To pass such other and further order/s necessary in the interest of justice.” 3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner which is a partnership firm is carrying out the business in the name and style of ‘V2-Realty’. The petition is filed by one of the partners of the petitioner firm. 3.2. The petitioner firm was incorporated w.e.f. 27.02.2012 under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and was carrying out the business in the name and style of ‘V­2 Agro’. The petitioner firm purchased the immovable property by registered sale deed vide registration No. 6213 of 2012 in the name of ‘V­2 Agro’. 3.3. It is the case of the petitioner that from time to time several alterations/ rectifications were made in the partnership deed of the petitioner firm with the consent of the partners and some of the partners have resigned, whereas, some others have been admitted / entered in the partnership firm, and accordingly, necessary rectifications / changes were made in the partnership deed on 18.05.2012, 21.12.2013 and 29.07.2014. 3.4. 3.4. It appears that the present partnership firm in the name and style of ‘V­2 Realty’ was earlier known as ‘V­2 Agro’ and name of the partnership firm ‘V­2 Agro’ was changed to ‘V­2 Realty’ w.e.f. 06.10.2015 by execution of the partnership deed without change in the partners or their share in profit/loss as per the previous partnership deed dated 29.07.2014. 3.5. It appears that thereafter another partnership deed dated 20.04.2016 was executed authorizing the partners of the petitioner firm to execute the agreements, deeds, sale deeds with regard to the properties of the partnership firm and also giving powers for registration of such deeds on behalf of the partnership firm and such partnership deed dated 20.04.2016 was registered with the Registrar of Firm, Surat Range­2 in prescribed Form-G and the registration no.11077 of 2016 was issued by the Certificate of Registration dated 21.06.2016. 3.6. It is the case of the petitioner that the partnership deed dated 20.04.2016 was executed on the non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/­ and thereafter, an amount of Rs.10,000/­ was deposited before the Deputy Collector and Stamp Duty Valuation Officer-respondent no.3 on 07.12.2016 towards the deficit stamp duty, and after such deposit, the respondent no.3 returned the original partnership deed. 3.7. It appears that, thereafter, the respondent no.2 Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps issued a notice dated 14.07.2017 under Section 53A of the Gujarat Stamps Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Stamp Act’) by registering the Review Case No. 73 of 2017 for suo-moto review of the decision of the respondent no.3. 3.8. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 09.04.2018 contending that there is no change / alteration in the partnership deed, so as to apply the Article­44(3)(a) to levy the stamp duty as per Article­20 of Schedule-I to the Stamp Act. The respondent no.2 ­ Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (for short ‘CCRA’) passed an order dated 11.10.2018 and levied the deficit stamp duty of Rs.39,11,000/­ considering the value of the property of the petitioner firm at Rs.8,00,00,000/­ on the ground that the petitioner firm is converted into Limited Liability Partnership (for short ‘LLP’). 4. This Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. The respondent no.2 ­ Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (for short ‘CCRA’) passed an order dated 11.10.2018 and levied the deficit stamp duty of Rs.39,11,000/­ considering the value of the property of the petitioner firm at Rs.8,00,00,000/­ on the ground that the petitioner firm is converted into Limited Liability Partnership (for short ‘LLP’). 4. This Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Pancholi) passed the following order on 20.12.2018 : “Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that by way of deed of partnership, which is produced at page 109, the partners have decided to change the name of the partnership firm from “V­2 Agro” to “V­2 Realty”, copy of which is produced at page 91 of the compilation. Thereafter, powers are given to the partners for which another agreement was executed, copy of which is produced at page 109 of the compilation. It is submitted that in spite of the fact that the name of the partnership firm is changed, the respondent authority has considered that V­2 Realty partnership firm is converted into Limited Liability Partnership Firm and thereby the impugned order is passed by the respondent No.1. In view of the aforesaid submissions, notice returnable on 22.01.2019. In the meantime, ad-interim relief in terms of para 16(C). Direct service is permitted.” 5.1. Learned advocate Mrs. Yogini V. Parikh for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the CCRA is contrary to the facts of the case, as the reply filed by the petitioner along with the documentary evidence has been totally ignored as the document dated 20.04.2016 was not executed for the purpose of converting the Partnership Firm into Limited Liability Partnership under the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and no conversion of partnership firm has taken place into limited liability partnership and the petitioner firm i.e. ‘V2 Realty’ continues to be a partnership firm under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Mrs. Parikh further submitted that the respondent no.1 authority has ignored the certificate of the registration issued by the Registrar of Firms under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and the petitioner firm is not registered under the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and as such the findings are contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. 5.2. 5.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that on perusal of both the partnership deeds dated 06.10.2015 and 20.04.2016, it cannot be said to be a ‘Conveyance Deed’ as defined under Section 2(g) of the Stamp Act, 1958. It was therefore submitted that the provisions of Article­20 of the Schedule-I to the Stamp Act as contemplated under Article 44 (1) of the Stamp Act cannot be applied. 5.3. It was also submitted that the partnership firm was never dissolved under Chapter-VI of the Partnership Act, 1932 and in absence of any evidence regarding dissolution of the partnership firm, the stamp duty could not have been levied under Article 44(3) of Schedule-I to the Stamps Act. 5.4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as contemplated under Section 60 of the Partnership Act, 1932, merely change in the name of the partnership firm cannot be construed as a transfer of interest of the title of any property in any manner whatsoever, as there is no change in the partners and their share in the profit/loss of the partnership firm. 5.5. It was therefore submitted that on renaming the partnership firm with the new name, there is no change in the profit / loss ratio of the receptive partners of the partnership firm and there is no change in the capital structure of the partnership firm, the firm remains the same with the same assets and liabilities. 5.6. It was also submitted that, it cannot be said that any property has been sold by the partners who have resigned from the partnership firm as such partners can claim the share in the profit of the partnership firm. Similarly, the persons who entered in the partnership firm as partners are entitled to profit sharing ratio and therefore, there is no sale of the property or gift of any of the property movable or immovable by the partnership deed so as to attract stamp duty under Article­20 of Schedule-I to the Stamps Act, 1958. 5.7. It was submitted that the authority ought to have taken into consideration that on mere change / alteration of the name of the partnership firm, it cannot be said to a ‘sale’ as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and therefore, the stamp duty cannot be levied as contemplated under Article 20 r/w. Article 44(3) of the Schedule-I to the Stamp Act, 1958. 5.8. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vijaybhai Zinabhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 4483 of 2014 and other allied matters in support of her submissions. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jaiswal appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that as per Article­44 of the Schedule-I to the Stamp Act, the partnership deed executed by the petitioner firm on 20.04.2016 refers to change of the partnership firm from ‘V­2 Agro’ to ‘V­2 Realty’, and therefore, the partnership firm is transferred from one name to another, resulting into change in the capital and the profit sharing ratio, and therefore, the stamp duty is to be levied under Article 20 of the Schedule-I to the Stamp Act. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the respondent no.1 has rightly considered that the partnership deeds have been changed from time to time and the deficit stamp duty though was paid but due to change in the name of the firm, a new firm has come into existence resulting into sale of original firm and therefore, the stamp duty is rightly to be held to be payable on the basis of the market value of the property of the partnership firm. 7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, it appears that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 is contrary to the facts and evidence on record. Firstly, there is no conversion of the partnership firm into limited liability partnership, because on bare perusal of the partnership deed dated 20.04.2016, it was only for authorizing the partners of the partnership firm to execute the agreement/s, deed/s and sale deed/s as regards the properties of the partnership firm and also authorizing partners to execute sale deeds and /or other deeds and also for the registration purpose of such deeds on behalf of the partnership firm. The petitioner firm which was earlier known as ‘V­2 Agro’ was renamed as ‘V­2 Realty’ and the partnership deed for the said effect was already executed on 16.10.2015. The petitioner firm has also deposited the deficit stamp duty of Rs.10,000/­. The petitioner firm which was earlier known as ‘V­2 Agro’ was renamed as ‘V­2 Realty’ and the partnership deed for the said effect was already executed on 16.10.2015. The petitioner firm has also deposited the deficit stamp duty of Rs.10,000/­. In such circumstances, merely change of the name of the partnership firm or merely authorizing the partners of the firm cannot be said to be an alteration in the constitution of the partnership firm. 8. It would therefore be germane to refer to Article­44 of the Schedule-I to the Stamp Act, which reads as under : 44. PARTNER SHIP (1) Instrument of Partnership (a) Where such share of capital is brought in by way of cash. Subject to maximum of ten thousand rupees, one rupee for every hundred rupee or part thereof of the amount of the capital of partnership. (b) Where such share of capital is brought in by way of immovable property. The same duty as is leviable on a conveyance under Article 20 for the market value of such immovable property. (c) Where such share of capital is brought in by way of cash and immovable property. The same duty as is leviable under sub-clauses (a) and (b), respectively."; (2) (a) Alteration in the constitution of the partnership in consequence of increaee of the capital of the partnership, Instrument of A Sum equal to the duty that would have been leviable under clause (I) as though capital of the partnership had been, when the partnership was formed, equal to the capital so increased, less sum already paid under clause (1). (b) Alteration in the constitution of the partnership in consequence of any reason other than that referred to in sub-clause (a), Instrument of [One hundred rupees] (3) Dissolution of ­ (a) where any immovable property is taken as his share on dissolution of partnership by a partner other than a partner who brought that property as his share or contribution to partnership. (b) in any other case. The same duty as is leviable on conveyance under Article 20 for the market value of such property or one hundred rupees, whichever is more. 9. On perusal of the above Article­44 of the Schedule-I to the Stamp Act and considering the partnership deed executed by the petitioner on 20.04.2016, it would fall under Clause­1(a) of Article­44 and not under Clasue­3(a). 9. On perusal of the above Article­44 of the Schedule-I to the Stamp Act and considering the partnership deed executed by the petitioner on 20.04.2016, it would fall under Clause­1(a) of Article­44 and not under Clasue­3(a). On perusal of the terms of the partnership deed dated 20.04.2016, it only states as under : “WHEREAS, the First Part to Fifth Part are doing the business in a partnership, in the name & style of “V2 Realty” (earlier known as V2 Agro) as stated in the partnership deed dated 27/02/2012 and 18/05/2012, 21/12/2013, 29/07/2014 and 06/10/2015. WHEREAS It is now agreed by and between the Parties that FIRST to FIFTH PART of this Deed of Partnership are severally and jointly authorized to enter into any agreement/s, deed/s, lease deed/s, sale deed/s, etc. with regard to the property of the partnership firm and also jointly and severally authorized to sign, execute and admit for registration the same before the competent authority, from time to time, and to carry on the business in partnership as stated herein and on the following terms and conditions as mutually agreed upon by and between them relating to the partnership.” 10. In view of the above, there is no other change in the partnership deed executed earlier. There is no change either in the partners or their profit sharing ratio as per the last partnership deed executed on 29.07.2014. Similarly, partnership deed dated 06.10.2015 only refers to the change of the name of the partnership firm from ‘V­2 Agro’ to ‘V­2 Realty’. Therefore, merely change of the name of the partnership firm, it cannot be said that there is change of ownership, as envisaged by the respondent no.1 to levy the stamp duty under Article­44(3)(a) of the Schedule by applying Article­20 of the Schedule-I to the Stamp Act. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 11.10.2018 is quashed and set aside and it is held that the petitioner is not liable to pay deficit stamp duty levied by the respondent no.1 by the impugned order dated 11.10.2018 in Review Application No. 73/2017. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.